UK Authorities Admit that ONLY 6,183 of All COVID Deaths had COVID Listed as the Sole Cause of Death on Death Certificates. Contradicting the Govt and Media's Claim that Over 150,000 Died from COVID

From [HERE] The UK Office for National Statistics admits just 6,000 people died of Covid-19 in England and Wales between Feb 2020 and Dec 2021. This is less than the rate of those killed in car accidents. And for that the Government closed down the entire economy with catastrophic bankruptcies, suicides, loss of income and pensions and closed hospitals resulting in untreated cancer and other deadly conditions and the release of hospital patients into care homes where record deaths occurred from covid infections.

In response to a freedom of information that requested the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to supply the number of deaths solely caused Covid-19, where Covid-19 was the only cause of death listed on the death certificate. [MORE]

the Office for National Statistics has admitted that just 6,183 people actually died of Covid-19 in England and Wales between February 1st 2020 and 31st December 2021, exposing the 150,000 death toll as an extraordinary (but long reported on Freenations) lie.…

According to DailyExpose; The ONS responded to the FOI on the 17th Jan 22, proving a breakdown of the number of deaths solely due to Covid-19 by age and sex between 1st Feb 20 and 31st Dec 21.

The response from the ONS revealed that there had been just 3,362 deaths among males between 1st Feb 20 and 31st Dec 21, and 2,821 deaths among females during the same time frame. The vast majority among the elderly population. This is a far cry from the claim of 150,000+ Covid-19 deaths made by the UK Government and its institutions.

The ONS also revealed that just 3 people under the age of 20 died of Covid-19 between 1st Feb 20 and 31st Dec 21, putting further shame on the UK Governments decision to overrule the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and administer an experimental Covid-19 injection; that is incapable of preventing infection or transmission, to children.

According to the Coronavirus dashboard on the UK Government site, as of 31st December 2021 the UK Government claimed a total of 149,217 people had died of Covid-19 since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic at the beginning of 2020.

But the ONS have confirmed the true number is just 6,183, and here’s how the actual number of deaths look in comparison to the misleading 150,000 lie perpetuated by the UK Government and mainstream media.

This was not a real pandemic. Even taking the completely flawed definition of a COVID death (both the American CDC and the British Office for National Statistics are now admitting they have been fraudulent), Infection Survival rates have been extremely high. As of 3/12/2021

Disastrous vaccination programme

Deaths following vaccination in the USA, UK and EU have now reached some 50,000 with millions of adverse reactions, half of them serious. In the UK the evidence is surely now incontrovertible – that the rise and fall in UK vaccination levels produces the rise and fall in COVID infections.

Between 10th December and 21st December the booster daily rate rose by 125%. This was followed by a 142% increase in cases between 21st December and 4th January.

The reverse has also proven to be the case for as the booster rate fell by 85% between 21st December and 3rd January so there followed a big fall of 67% in COVID cases between 4th January and 16th January.

There has been a further rise in booster take up between 2nd January (111,000 per day) and 8th January (235,000) which produced a rise in infections between 16th January (74,494 infections) and 19th January (108,069 infections) – another direct linkage!

Nor can the Government claim a saving of lives for since the booster programme started on 1st October daily deaths doubled between 14th October and 8th January.

NHS forced vaccinations

As the deadline for NHS “frontline” staff to be vaccinated looms it is worth recording not only the many conventions, declarations and standards of international medical practise which forbid compulsory or coerced vaccinations but also the recent statement

from the World Health Organisation “if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission.”

But we know that the vaccines prevent neither infection nor infectiousness and recent statistics from the UK Government demonstrate that by weeks 49 to 52 of 2021 all age groups which have been triple vaccinated show an immune system performance far inferior to the unvaccinated (between 7% and 60% according to age group).

Other statistics from the UK Health Security Agency Covid-19 vaccine surveillance report Week 42 Page 13 show covid cases in the vaccinated between 27% and 124% higher than the unvaccinated. COVID cases:

The UK’s Office for National Statistics admit a large increase in deaths among 15-19 year old males since vaccination was rolled out for that age group.

• May-Dec, 2020: 257 deaths

• May-Dec, 2021: 402 deaths (of which 2 deaths were due to covid)

There are thousands of immunology experts, researchers and medical practitioners who know these dangers and reject the vaccination programme. In a great embarrassment for the British Government an NHS doctor was filmed telling the Health Secretary why he would not be vaccinated.

In the light of this evidence and the quite clear statements of the Council of Europe, UNESCO, the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Code politicians who press ahead with the compulsory vaccinations for health care staff are courting serious legal liability – in addition to the thousands of doctors and nurses who will resign rather than be vaccinated (they have witnessed too many deaths and too much suffering among those who have been vaccinated).

Australian dictatorship proves a disaster

Australian politicians have instituted some the most draconian and anti democratic controls and vaccine mandates on their people – and yet 69% of New South Wales  hospitalisations are of the vaccinated and the post vaccination deaths have reached an historic peak.

Australia’s vaccine fanatics have certainly been proven wrong. Since the rapid increase in the Australian’s vaccination programme in the latter part of 2021 covid infections rose from 31,000 on 15th July to over 2 million on 21st January (a 6,600% increase). A familiar pattern in other countries as readers of Freenations will know from past posts. But a pattern the vaccine fanatics and criminal political and media establishments ignore, deny and censor!

The UK’s Office for National Statistics admit a large increase in deaths among 15-19 year old males since vaccination was rolled out for that age group.

• May-Dec, 2020: 257 deaths

• May-Dec, 2021: 402 deaths (of which 2 deaths were due to covid)

There are thousands of immunology experts, researchers and medical practitioners who know these dangers and reject the vaccination programme. In a great embarrassment for the British Government an NHS doctor was filmed telling the Health Secretary why he would not be vaccinated.

In the light of this evidence and the quite clear statements of the Council of Europe, UNESCO, the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Code politicians who press ahead with the compulsory vaccinations for health care staff are courting serious legal liability – in addition to the thousands of doctors and nurses who will resign rather than be vaccinated (they have witnessed too many deaths and too much suffering among those who have been vaccinated).

Australian dictatorship proves a disaster

Australian politicians have instituted some the most draconian and anti democratic controls and vaccine mandates on their people – and yet 69% of New South Wales  hospitalisations are of the vaccinated and the post vaccination deaths have reached an historic peak.

Australia’s vaccine fanatics have certainly been proven wrong. Since the rapid increase in the Australian’s vaccination programme in the latter part of 2021 covid infections rose from 31,000 on 15th July to over 2 million on 21st January (a 6,600% increase). A familiar pattern in other countries as readers of Freenations will know from past posts. But a pattern the vaccine fanatics and criminal political and media establishments ignore, deny and censor!

Govt of Thailand Admits that COVID Injections Have Caused Death and Permanent Injuries. At Least $28 Million Paid to Victims So Far. But, Authorities Still Push the Fake-Vax and Donate It to Africa

From [HERE] What is important in this report by the Bangkok Post is that the Royal Thai Government (member state of the UN and the WHO) firmly acknowledges the deaths and adverse events affecting Thais who have taken the vaccine jab. 

“Out of the 11,707 people who filed a claim with authorities, 8,470 people, or 72.3% of all claimants, have been compensated”.  1,962 individuals, namely 23% of the claimants “were left permanently paralysed or died after receiving their Covid-19 shot”.  [MORE]

The implications could be far-reaching. Nevertheless, The Public Health Ministry has asked the Centre for Covid-19 Situation Administration (CCSA) to approve a fourth inoculation for frontline medical personnel, volunteer groups and people with underlying health conditions. Authorities also plan to donate vaccines to neighbouring countries including Myanmar as well as to Africa. [MORE]

Global Research says; People in Thailand and around the World will be informed of the decision of the Thai government and will refuse to take the jab. 

And this decision establishes a legal precedent. Class action law suits as well criminal charges against Big Pharma and corrupt governments are forthcoming.  

National governments will no longer be able to deny the devastating impacts of what is widely recognized as a killer vaccine. 

Nor will they be able to impose a vaccine passport. 

Also, if you have any doubts read  the report on the “Confidential Report” by Pfizer released under Freedom of Information which confirms unequivocally the criminal nature of the mRNA vaccine which has resulted in a Worldwide wave of deaths and injuries:

Tens of Thousands of Australians Want Compensation for COVID Vaccine Injuries

“What is contained in  Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “Horse’s Mouth” can now be used to confront as well formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.”

 Almost one billion baht in compensation has been paid out to Thais who suffered adverse side effects from the Covid-19 vaccine over the past eight months, says the National Health Security Office (NHSO).

About 927 million baht [28 million dollars] in compensation was approved between April 5 and Dec 26, it said.

Out of the 11,707 people who filed a claim with authorities, 8,470 people, or 72.3% of all claimants, have been compensated, said Atthaporn Limpanyalert, spokesman and deputy secretary-general of the NHSO.

The claims were grouped into three categories, the first being claims filed by vaccine recipients who reported mild to moderate side effects after receiving their Covid-19 jab.

In total, there are 6,298 people in this category, Dr Atthaporn said, noting they are eligible to receive no more than 100,000 baht in compensation from the government.

The second category, Dr Atthaporn said, comprises claims filed by those who experienced temporary paralysis and/or loss of other bodily functions after they were vaccinated, noting the 210 people in this category will receive up to 240,000 baht in compensation.

The final category is made up of individuals who were left permanently paralysed or died after receiving their Covid-19 shot. The 1,962 people in this category are eligible to claim up to 400,000 baht in compensation.

Out of the 11,707 claims filed, 1,752 were rejected because the claimants failed to meet the criteria set out — 615 of whom have lodged an appeal.

Claimants are entitled to seek the compensation for themselves and/or relatives without having to prove without doubt that their health condition was indeed caused by receiving the Covid vaccine.

Dr Atthaporn said the NHSO has set up 13 committees throughout the country to process the compensation claims, adding compensation will be paid within five days of the petition being approved.

Meanwhile, the NHSO transferred an additional 31.3 billion baht to 1,942 medical facilities and hospitals nationwide in October and November to help the fight against Covid-19, said NHSO secretary-general Jadet Thammathat-aree.

Leaked US Military Documents Acknowledge Ivermectin "Works Throughout All Phases of Illness”

From [NN] and {HERE] Another major bombshell has been found by Project Veritas in leaked military documents.

It turns out that ivermectin, which has largely been banned in the United States ever since the plandemic started, is highly effective at treating the Fauci Flu.

A section of the document reveals that ivermectin was “identified as curative in April 2020” because it “works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response.”

You read that right: The government knows and fully admits, at least to other government insiders, that ivermectin is a cure for covid that has been kept out of the hands of the American people for political and eugenics reasons.

Also admitted in the same document is the fact that hydroxychloroquine is also a curative substance for covid. It is outlined as a “SARSr-Cov inhibitor,” as is interferon.

The plan, as we now see, was to deprive the public of curative agents like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine in order to steer the herd straight into remdesivir (which Tony Fauci partially owns) as well as the “vaccines” introduced by Donald “father of the vaccine” Trump under Operation Warp Speed.

Leaked military documents admit that covid vaccines do not protect against any covid variants

Another revelation in the documents explains that EcoHealth Alliance, in its proposal to DARPA for funding, admitted that the “vaccine approach lacks sufficient epitope coverage to protect against quasispecies of coronavirus.”

What this means, of course, is that any new mutation or variant that occurs in deviation from the original SARS-CoV-2 can easily bypass the injections and their associated “boosters.”

Not only that, but the jabs are “potentially detrimental,” the documents go on to reveal, because they damage the immune system’s antibody response, particularly to other covid variants.

While an unvaccinated person who becomes exposed to the original Fauci Flu and recovers develops permanent immunity to all mutations and variants, the same cannot be said for the fully vaccinated, whose bodies will not be able to handle encountering them.

This is where the AIDS thesis of these injections comes into play, meaning the fully vaccinated are basically undergoing a process of immune wasting much like an AIDS patient.

“The nature of using a spike protein vaccine with one epitope against a spike protein vaccine with a quasispecies may explain the unusual (and potentially detrimental) antibody response amongst the vaccinated to the new COVID variants,” the documents read.

Fundamentally, the knowledge the proposal provides signals that the risk of Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) from vaccination should be evaluated with high priority, on top of the reality that single-epitope vaccines will have little effect against SARSr-CoV-WIV, as indicated in the proposal.”

All of this would have been written before there were even any vaccines available, at least as far as the public was aware. It was also before there really even was a plandemic, again at least as far as the public was aware.

Meanwhile, cheap, safe and effective ivermectin is so taboo now that doctors are actually being threatened with termination for prescribing it to their patients.

If this is not evidence enough to convince you that the powers that be want you dead and not “safe” as they claim, well, then perhaps nothing will.

“Who here made it through the biggest psy-op in history and didn’t get jabbed? Congrats!” joked one commenter at Zero Hedge.

“Yep, the biggest con in American history,” responded another. “Why is Fauci still a free man?”

“Not only do they know that ivermectin works, they know that high dose IV vitamin C works miracles even in the most critical of cases,” noted another.

Video Testimony Violated a Black Man's 6th Amendment rights, Missouri Supreme Court rules. “General concerns about the spread of COVID don't justify abridging the right to in-person confrontation”

From [HERE] A recent decision on video testimony by the Missouri Supreme Court is raising questions about criminal convictions obtained using video testimony during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Jan. 11 decision held that defendant Rodney A. Smith’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by two-way live video testimony about DNA evidence.

The Associated Press has a story on the ramifications.

The witness who testified via video was a police lab employee on paternity leave at the time. He testified that Smith’s DNA matched what was found on a 16-year-old girl who initially accused him of sexual assault. The teenager later recanted, which made the lab employee’s testimony key to Smith’s conviction for statutory rape. Smith’s lawyer had objected to the video arrangement.

The state supreme court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed one-way video testimony by child-abuse victims who would be traumatized if they could see the defendant. That case, Maryland v. Craig, said such testimony was allowed when necessary to advance an important public policy.

But in Smith’s case, the witness “was neither a victim nor a child,” and the trial court had made no finding that he was unavailable, the Missouri Supreme Court said. The admission of his testimony was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and the conviction must be reversed, the court said.

Michael Wolff, a former chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court and a professor at the St. Louis University School of Law, told the Associated Press that the issue could reach the Supreme Court.

“This guy was convicted with the use of Zoom technology and could not have been convicted without it,” he noted.

Wolff also pointed out that Smith objected to the video testimony; many other defendants have often waived their right to confront witnesses during the pandemic.

Two other appeals courts have reached differing decisions on video testimony, according to the AP. The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that two-way live video testimony did not violate a defendant’s rights. The remote testimony was allowed because of a specific, particularized health concern.

But the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld a decision denying a prosecutor’s request to allow a witness to testify remotely because of COVID-19 fears.

“General concerns about the spread of the virus do not justify abridging a defendant’s right to in-person confrontation,” the court said.

Biden Has Nominated Eight Black Women To Appellate Courts

From [HERE] President Joe Biden could potentially double the number of Black women ever confirmed to federal appellate courts, a key stepping stone to the U.S.Supreme Court (article available here(link is external)).

As of Wednesday, with the selection of Arianna J. Freeman for the Third Circuit, the president has nominated eight Black women to the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals. Five have been confirmed, most recently on Thursday, when Judge Holly A. Thomas cleared Senate approval to join the Ninth Circuit.

If the remaining three are confirmed, Biden would have doubled the total number of Black women to ever serve on federal appeals courts from eight to sixteen.

The federal appellate courts represent the highest judicial level under the Supreme Court and are the primary selection ground for future Supreme Court justices. Biden’s nominations reflect his intention to diversify the federal bench. By increasing the number of Black women judges in the courts where most justices come from, it also expands the pool of likely candidates for Biden to make good on his campaign promise to appoint the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. Biden has already put more Black women to the U.S. Courts of Appeals than any other president.

Beyond racial and gender diversity, Biden has made another notable mark by nominating the most people with public defender backgrounds to appellate courts than any other president. Of all of Biden’s judicial nominations, Freeman and 22 others are former public defenders; 15 have been confirmed so far.

In addition to Freeman, Biden’s list of nominees announced this week includes Nusrat Jahan Choudhury, who would be the first Muslim American woman to serve as a federal judge and Ana Isabel de Alba, who would be the first Latina ever to serve on the Eastern District of California.

Citing its “Christian values” and the Unavailability of Any Humane Means to Carry out its Murders ["executions"], Papua New Guinea Abolishes the Death Penalty

From [HERE] Citing its “Christian values” and the unavailability of any humane means to carry out executions, Papua New Guinea has abolished capital punishment. 

On January 20, 2022, the PNG parliament voted to repeal the nation’s 30-year-old death penalty statute and replace capital punishment with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. 

“For us as a Christian nation,” Prime Minister James Marape (pictured) said, “the notion of ‘thou shall not kill’ still prevails.” The death penalty, Marape said, “is not an effective deterrent to serious crime and offences.”

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet “warmly welcome[d]” the parliament’s vote, characterizing it as “reinforcing the rule of law and strengthening public confidence that those found guilty after trials following due process and in line with human rights standards will receive fair, proportionate and consistent punishment.” 

The parliament’s action came in the wake of an August 2021 ruling by the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea that lifted stays of execution for 14 death-row prisoners, removing the last legal hurdle preventing the first executions in 70 years in the 9 million-person nation in western Oceania. In 2013, the PNG cabinet proposed hanging, firing squad, and lethal injection as methods of execution after the country’s constitutional law reform commission traveled to the United States and neighboring Southeast Asian island nations to study their administration of capital punishment. 

Presenting the abolition bill to parliament, Justice Minister Bryan Kramer said PNG did not have the “necessary administrative mechanisms and infrastructure” to conduct executions humanely. The bill commuted the death sentences of 40 death-row prisoners to life without parole.

Republican Legislators Introduce Bill to Repeal and Replace Utah’s Death Penalty

From [DPIC] Two conservative Republican legislators, both former supporters of capital punishment, have introduced legislation that would end death-penalty prosecutions in Utah. 

On January 18, 2022, the first day of the three-month 2022 legislative session in the deeply conservative state, State Representative V. Lowry Snow (pictured, left) and Senator Daniel McCay (pictured, right) introduced HB 147, which would prohibit the death penalty for aggravated murders committed after May 4, 2022 and for all other aggravated murders for which prosecutors had not filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty before May 4, 2022. The measure has the support of victims’ family members, business leaders, and four prosecutors representing more than half the state’s population.

Aggravated murder is currently punishable in Utah by the death penalty, life in prison without possibility of parole, or a sentence of 25 years to life. HB 147 would repeal the death-penalty option and add a new non-capital sentencing alternative of 45 years to life. The bill would not affect the sentences of the seven men currently on the state’s death row.

Snow, the House sponsor of the bill, said “The reality is, of our system, in our state, in other states, it’s not a perfect system. But when we impose a death sentence, it is a perfect sentence. There’s nothing that is left after a person’s life is taken. It’s final. There is no way to correct that.” McCay told the editorial boards of the Deseret News and KSL.com that the death penalty “sets a false expectation for society, sets a false expectation for the victims and their families, and increases the cost to the state of Utah.”

Sharon Wright Weeks, whose sister and niece were murdered in 1984, has been an outspoken advocate for repeal. She spoke about how the death-penalty appeals process for Ron Lafferty, the man convicted of killing her family members, caused additional trauma for her family. “The vast majority of people have no idea what victims’ families are going through, going through this appellate process. It’s absolutely horrendous, and it’s mean,” she told The Independent. A meeting with her helped convince Rep. Snow to support abolition. 

“She expressed to me the trauma her family had been through, not just in terms of his two trials but the promise, the representation that was made by the state that he should be put to death, and now we were at 33, 34 years later, and it still hadn’t occurred,” he said. “In between, every time there was anything that happened in terms of him exercising his appellate rights or rehearing rights, or the second trial that the family had to go through, they had to relive again the tragic loss of her sister as well as her sister’s infant daughter.”

Impact of pretrial detention falls more heavily on Blacks, Latinos and low-income people, new report says

From [HERE] More than 60% of defendants are detained before trial because they can’t afford to post bail, according to a study finding that the impact falls most heavily on minorities and low-income people.

Nationally, the average bail amount for felonies is $10,000, according to the report released Thursday by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The report is titled The Civil Rights Implications of Cash Bail.

“With the imposition of financial conditions increasing along with bail amounts,” the report said, “the number of defendants who are detained in jail pretrial has grown, but the number of those sentenced have decreased.”

A total of 631,000 people are held in jails every day, and 74% are awaiting trial, the report said.

Research suggests that people of color may be subjected to higher bail amounts and are more likely to be perceived as dangerous during bail hearings, according to the report.

One study, for example, found that when monetary bail was set for Black defendants, it was in significantly greater amounts than for white defendants.

Research also shows that Black and Hispanic defendants have higher rates of pretrial detention than white defendants and are more likely to have financial conditions imposed.

Pretrial detention has collateral consequences, such as job losses, housing insecurity, family problems and an increased likelihood of engaging in future criminal conduct, the report noted. Those consequences have led to increasing concerns, especially given the lack of empirical research showing that pretrial detention increases public safety.

Many defendants post bail by relying on bail bond companies, for-profit businesses that charge a nonrefundable fee, usually set at 10% to 20% of the bail amount. Many defendants sign bail bond contracts that obligate them to pay loan installments and fees after their cases are resolved.

Bail concerns have led to reforms in at least 10 states and 40 counties. Some are revising or have already revised pretrial law and policy, while others are changing state constitutions, the report said.

The report followed a public hearing in which the commission heard from government officials, academics, law enforcement professionals, advocates and impacted people.

Norma V. Cantú, chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, commented on the findings in a press release.

“More than half a million unconvicted people sit in jails across the nation awaiting trial,” Cantú said. “Presumption of innocence is the bedrock of our criminal justice system, with liberty the rule and pretrial detention intended to be a ‘carefully limited exception.’ Under the current bail system, it has become the norm.”

Eleventh Circuit Rules ‘No-trick-or-treat’ Warning Signs Put in the Yards of Registered Sex Offenders Violate Rights

From [HERE] Georgia sheriff began a policy in 2018 of putting signs in the yards of all 57 registered sex offenders in the county that read, "STOP" and "NO TRICK-OR-TREAT AT THIS ADDRESS." District court: That's fine. Eleventh Circuit(link is external) (with pictures!): Not fine. This is “a classic example” of compelled government speech, and it's unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment.

Joyce Watkins, 74 Yr Old Black Woman, Exonerated After 27 Years in Prison for Wrongful Murder Conviction

From [EJI], was exonerated in a Nashville courtroom last week. She spent more than 27 years in prison after she and her boyfriend, Charlie Dunn, were wrongly convicted of aggravated rape and felony murder in the 1987 death of her four-year-old great-niece, Brandi.

“Joyce Watkins and Charlie Dunn are innocent,” District Attorney Glenn Funk told CNN. “We cannot give Ms. Watkins or Mr. Dunn their lost years but we can restore their dignity; we can restore their names. Their innocence demands it.”

In the summer of 1987, Joyce Watkins and Charles Dunn were working full-time jobs, were close to their family and friends, and lived in a nice home in a nice neighborhood, according to a report filed by the Davidson County District Attorney’s Office’s Conviction Review Unit. Ms. Watkins was applying to adopt a child of her own and Mr. Dunn was close to and regularly spent time with his children. Neither had any criminal record.

They drove to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, on June 26 to pick up Ms. Watkins’s great-niece, Brandi, who had spent the previous two months with her other great-aunt, Rose Williams. Ms. Williams had repeatedly and insistently called Ms. Watkins to come take Brandi to her home in Nashville, the CRU found.

When they arrived home, Ms. Watkins noticed blood in Brandi’s underwear and called the girl’s grandmother to tell her Brandi was bleeding and needed medical attention. Brandi’s mother and grandmother told Ms. Watkins not to take her to the hospital but that they would come to get her. When they hadn’t arrived by morning, the CRU report says, Ms. Watkins took Brandi to the emergency room.

By then, the CRU report says, Brandi was unconscious and bleeding more heavily. She was intubated and transferred to Vanderbilt, where she died the following morning. The cause of death was determined to be head trauma.

Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn cooperated with the investigation and allowed police to retrieve the child’s clothes and bedding from their home. Police interviewed Ms. Watkins several times without informing her of her rights and without an attorney present, the CRU found.

Dr. Mona Gretel Harlan, the assistant county medical examiner who performed the autopsy with her husband, Dr. Charles Harlan, initially said Brandi’s injuries occurred within 24 to 48 hours of her death based on looking at bruises on her body—a method that the CRU said has been discredited.

That period included the time before Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn picked Brandi up, and the investigation initially focused on the theory that Brandi’s injuries occurred in Kentucky, the CRU report says.

In fact, during the two months she lived in Fort Campbell with Ms. Williams, Brandi suffered a variety of bruises, scrapes, and marks, lost consciousness at least twice, and exhibited abnormal behaviors like drinking out of a toilet and vomiting spontaneously at the dinner table, according to the CRU report. She had daily episodes of urinary incontinence and her private parts hurt so badly she wouldn’t sit down in the bathtub, but no one sought medical attention for her.

The Kentucky Department of Social Services received a report that Brandi was being physically abused, but the CRU report says a social worker sent to Ms. Williams’s home closed the investigation without speaking with or observing the child after Ms. Williams falsely claimed Brandi had been returned to her mother in Georgia.

Despite this documented ongoing abuse and neglect of Brandi while she was in Ms. Williams’s care, police “failed to engage in even a cursory investigation into any of the multiple other individuals who had direct access to Brandi during the time frame her injuries likely occurred,” the CRU report says. They instead charged Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn with aggravated rape and felony murder.

At trial in 1988, the “most damning proof” presented to the jury was Dr. Harlan’s opinion regarding the timing of the injuries, which she changed just 20 minutes before trial started. She testified that the injuries occurred less than 12-14 hours before death, when Brandi was in the care of Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn. “To accept her testimony meant a guilty verdict must be rendered,” the CRU found.

In what the CRU calls “emotionally charged, flatly incorrect summations of the evidence,” the State shored up its purely circumstantial case with false claims that painted Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn as monsters, including falsely telling the jury that attempted anal rape had occurred and that Mr. Dunn had caused scratches on Brandi’s back while raping her, the CRU report says. The State also told the jury that Ms. Watkins had washed a bedsheet to destroy evidence of the rape.

Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. After more than 27 years in prison, Ms. Watkins was released on parole in 2015.

She asked the Tennessee Innocence Project to clear her name, CNN reports, and they brought in the Conviction Review Unit, which conducted an extensive investigation and filed a 44-page report in November detailing its findings that Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn “were convicted of crimes they did not commit.”

The Davidson County Criminal Court found that Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn were actually innocent and vacated their convictions in an order issued on January 6.

The court found that new medical evidence proves that Dr. Harlan’s testimony was inaccurate and relied on illegitimate, discredited methods. “Specifically,” the court wrote, “Dr. Lewis [the state’s current chief medical examiner] testified that Dr. Gretel Harlan’s methodology for dating the head injury based upon a lack of histiocytic response in the brain tissue is not a legitimate method for dating pediatric head trauma.”

In addition to the “debunked histiocytic response methodology,” the court found, Dr. Harlan’s reliance on visual inspection of bruising to opine on the timing of the injuries in this case has been disavowed by the medical community.

The new evidence further showed that a more reliable indicator of timing of the injuries in this case is found in the perineal injury, where macrophages were found during the autopsy. Because those cells would not be expected to appear until several days or even more than a week following an injury, they show Brandi’s injuries occurred well before Ms. Watkins and Mr. Dunn picked her up, the court found—leaving “no compelling scientific evidence that Ms. Watkins or Mr. Dunn committed the crimes for which they were convicted.”

“The evidence presented at trial and post-conviction in this case was misleading, false, and uncorrected as to material issues,” the court continued. Specifically, the court found that the prosecutor not only falsely told the jury that Ms. Watkins washed a bedsheet to destroy evidence, but illegally withheld a Tennessee Department of Human Services report showing the sheet was not washed and was in Ms. Watkins’s home, available for collection.

The court announced its ruling on January 12, but the exoneration came too late for Mr. Dunn, who was granted parole but died suddenly in jail in 2015 while awaiting release.

“I wish my daddy was here to witness this day,” Mr. Dunn’s daughter, Jackie Dunn, told WTVF at last week’s hearing. “He knew he was innocent, he knew he did not commit those crimes.”

Ms. Watson’s lawyer told CNN it was unclear whether she or Mr. Dunn’s family would be compensated for the decades they spent wrongfully incarcerated.

“I thank all the people for their prayers and helping me get out of this mess which has cost me half of my life for nothing,” Ms. Watson told reporters. “But I’ll get over it.”

A Black Child (Keith Belcher) had been sentenced to 60 years in adult prison b/c judge deemed him a “superpredator.” Con Supreme CT Holds Sentence Based on Discredited Superpredator Myth Is Illegal

From [EJI] The Connecticut Supreme Court on Friday unanimously ordered a new sentencing hearing for Keith Belcher, a Black child sentenced to 60 years in adult prison because the sentencing judge deemed him a “superpredator.”

Keith Belcher was just 14 years old when he was arrested in 1993. He was prosecuted in adult court and convicted in the sexual assault and robbery of an elderly woman.

At the sentencing hearing on January 24, 1997, the court said, “The conduct here was just so inhumane as to be considered subhuman.” The court continued:

Professor John [J. DiIulio, Jr.], of Princeton University has coined the term ‘superpredator,’ which refers to a group of radically impulsive, brutally remorseless youngsters who assault, rape, rob and burglarize. Mr. Belcher, you are a charter member of that group. You have no fears, from your conduct, of the pains of imprisonment; nor do you suffer from the pangs of conscience.

The court imposed a total effective sentence of 60 years in prison—the longest determinate sentence imposed on a 14-year-old in Connecticut, Deputy Assistant Public Defender Alexandra Harrington, told CT Post last year. “[N]o other person in Connecticut is currently serving a sentence longer than 20 years for a non-homicide offense committed at age 14.”

That sentence was imposed in an illegal manner, the state’s highest court held, because the sentencing court relied on the erroneous and discredited theory of teenage “superpredators.”

In 1995, John DiIulio predicted a coming wave of “tens of thousands of severely morally impoverished juvenile super-predators” who would include ‘‘elementary school youngsters who pack guns instead of lunches’’ and ‘‘have absolutely no respect for human life.’’

These predictions disproportionately demonized Black teens. DiIulio wrote: ‘‘[N]ot only is the number of young [B]lack criminals likely to surge, but also the [B]lack crime rate, both black-on-black and black-on-white, is increasing, so that as many as [one] half of these juvenile super-predators could be young [B]lack males.’’

But as the Connecticut Supreme Court noted, the data did not support DiIulio’s assertions—juvenile offense rates had already dropped from their peak, and five years after he coined the term “superpredator,” the Justice Department found that “the rate of serious juvenile offending as of the mid-[1990s] was comparable to that of a generation ago.” A year later, in 2001, the U.S. Office of the Surgeon General labeled the superpredator theory a myth.

“[T]he superpredator theory was baseless when it originally was espoused and has since been thoroughly debunked and universally rejected as a myth,” the Connecticut Supreme Court found. “[I]t therefore constituted false and unreliable information that a sentencing court ought not consider in crafting a sentence for a juvenile offender.”

The sentencing court’s reliance on this racially biased myth was especially problematic in this case, the court explained, because it called into question whether the court would have sentenced Keith Belcher as harshly if he was not Black.

“The superpredator theory tapped into and amplified racial stereotypes that date back to the founding of our nation”—when enslaved Black people were legally considered to be property, not human beings, the court wrote.

The dehumanization of Black children pervades this country’s history.

Connecticut Supreme Court

In the mid-19th century, the court explained, adolescence was recognized as a distinct developmental stage for white children, prompting social reforms aimed at directing “wayward youth” to reform schools rather than incarcerating them with adults.

Black children, however, remained enslaved and “were viewed as subhuman.”  As a result, the court wrote, by 1850, rather than being sent to reform schools, ‘‘a disproportionate number of Black youths were jailed in cities with majority white populations.’’

The court traced the disparate treatment of Black youth in our criminal legal system today to this “historical fiction that Black adolescents are not actually ‘children’ meriting societal protection.”

Unlike white children who were seen as vulnerable and deserving of legal protections, Black children were seen as dangerous criminals that the public needs to be protected from—and the superpredator theory amplified this presumption of guilt and dangerousness by invoking images of packs of Black teens prowling the streets like animals.

The resulting media frenzy and public panic led nearly every state in the country to change its laws, subjecting children to punishments that were designed for adults. The consequences of these legal changes, the court wrote, fell disproportionately on Black teens.

“[B]y invoking the superpredator theory to sentence the young, Black male defendant in the present case,” the court concluded, the sentencing court “relied on materially false, racial stereotypes that perpetuate systemic inequities—demanding harsher sentences—that date back to the founding of our nation.”

In addition, the sentencing court violated U.S. Supreme Court precedent, including Miller v. Alabama, requiring that the hallmark characteristics of youth—impulsivity, submission to peer pressure, deficient judgment, and the capacity for change—must be considered as mitigating factors in sentencing. Instead, by relying on the superpredator myth, the sentencing court counted those qualities as an aggravating factor against Keith Belcher.

“[T]he superpredator myth is precisely the type of materially false information that courts should not rely on in making sentencing decisions,” the court concluded. “The court’s reliance on the superpredator theory, and its view that it had to protect society from a charter member of this remorseless group, dominated its sentencing remarks”—it was, the court found, “the prism through which the court viewed this defendant.”

Because the court’s “reliance on the false and pernicious superpredator theory in the present case so infected the sentencing that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner,” the supreme court granted Mr. Belcher’s motion to correct an illegal sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.

The Journal of Hepatology Explains There is Growing evidence COVID-19 mRNA Injections Can Cause Severe Liver Damage

From [HERE] A recent Letter to the Editor published on the Journal of Hepatology website adds to the growing evidence that the mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19 can cause severe liver damage. Entitled ‘Immune-mediated hepatitis with the Moderna vaccine, no longer a coincidence but confirmed’, the letter – written by four hospital doctors from the UK – summarizes the case history of a patient who received two doses of the vaccine. The doctors say the case provides “conclusive evidence” that the first dose led to immune-mediated hepatitis, with a rapid onset of liver injury. A second dose resulted in the development of acute severe autoimmune hepatitis. The patient was previously completely well with no other health problems.

The letter describes how the patient, a 47-year-old Caucasian man, received his first dose of the Moderna vaccine in April 2021. He noted malaise and jaundice three days later. Blood tests showed abnormal liver function, with his serum bilirubin around ten times normal and alanine aminotransferase more than twenty times normal. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) and alcohol use were ruled out as potential causes.

“Planned Obsolescence”: The Push for Big Pharma’s Booster Covid Shots and Annual Vaccinations

The patient’s jaundice and liver function tests had improved by late June but were still abnormal. He was subsequently given a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in early July, despite reporting the jaundice to the vaccination center. A few days later he became deeply jaundiced, with a bilirubin level approaching twenty times normal and numerous other liver abnormalities. The doctors say the pattern of injury was consistent with acute hepatitis, with features of autoimmune hepatitis or possible drug-induced liver injury, triggering an autoimmune-like hepatitis.

As the doctors point out in their letter, the onset of jaundice associated with the vaccine was unusually rapid. Significantly, therefore, and as they also acknowledge, this case is hardly the first in which COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have been associated with liver damage. Even prior to the publication of their letter, the doctors say at least seven cases of immune-mediated hepatitis linked to mRNA vaccines had already been reported in the scientific literature. Three of these cases related to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and four to the Moderna vaccine.

The doctors say they reported this latest case in order to encourage vigilance for such reactions, as well as to raise awareness for vaccination centers to incorporate them into their routine checks before administering second doses of mRNA vaccines. They stress that long-term follow up of affected individuals will be essential in determining the prognosis of this type of immune-mediated liver injury.

Ultimately, of course, the fact is that liver damage is only one of many serious side effects reported in connection with the mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19. Others include very low platelet counts (thrombocytopenia); high rates of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions (anaphylaxis); inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis); blood clots (thrombosis); and even death.

Twenty-four centuries ago, the Greek physician Hippocrates is said to have exhorted the medical practitioners of his time to “first, do no harm.” While in conventional medicine this principle was already widely flouted in the pre-COVID era, with the ultrarapid authorization of mRNA vaccines it has essentially been almost completely abandoned. The time has come for political leaders and medical authorities to suspend the use of these experimental injections, pending a full and independent investigation into their dangers.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul Anthony Taylor is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings.

Blood Clots & Inflammation: Dr. Thompson Details J&J COVID Injection Reaction & Bloodwork Findings

'LOSS THEY MF MIND!' [The Great Brain Robbery] Poll Says Most Dumbocrats Favor House Arrest for People Who Refuse Experimental, Deadly COVID Injections. Nearly 1/3 Want Them To Lose Custody of Kids

From [HERE] Democrats were more than twice as likely as other voters to favor harsh government restrictions being placed on unvaccinated people’s lives, ranging from fines and house arrest to imprisonment in government facilities and loss of child custody, in a recent poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports and the Heartland Institute.

Forty-eight percent of Democratic voters said the government should be able to fine or imprison those who publicly question the COVID-19 vaccine’s efficacy, while only 27% of all voters supported the proposal, according to the poll results.

Fines against those who refuse to take the vaccine were viewed favorably by 55% of Democratic voters and just 19% of Republicans, and 59% of Democrats favored a policy requiring unvaccinated people to stay inside their homes at all times, except for emergencies, the poll found. Seventy-nine percent of Republicans opposed a house arrest policy for unvaccinated people.

Forty-five percent of Democratic respondents favored the government forcing people into “designated facilities” until they get the vaccine — a measure opposed by 71% of all voters. 

A government program using digital devices to track the movements of unvaccinated people and ensure that they are quarantined or socially distancing was opposed by two-thirds of likely voters, but 47% of Democratic respondents supported the idea of such a program.

Twenty-nine percent of Democratic voters said the government should take people’s children from them if they refuse to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a measure viewed favorably by 7% of Republicans and 11% of unaffiliated voters.

Victims say Rwanda Authorities are Forcibly Injecting People with Deadly Fake COVID Vax

From [HERE] Although Rwanda says it will not mandate people to take COVID-19 vaccines, some residents — especially in rural areas — say officials have been forcing Rwandans to take the jabs.

Rwanda has been recognized by the World Health Organization as being among the countries to fully vaccinate at least 40% of their populations against COVID-19 by the end of 2021.

Currently, more than 49% of almost 13 million Rwandans have been double-jabbed, and more than 61% have had at least one vaccine administered.

But some Rwandans say this number is only possible because of force by local leaders and police. DW spoke to some people who said they had been forced to receive vaccinations. For fear of possible consequences, they either chose to remain anonymous or DW decided to leave their names out of the report.

A man from the Muhanga district, in Rwanda's Southern Province, told DW that he was handcuffed in order to receive the jab.

"Around 4 a.m. our local cell leader kicked in my door," he said "I thought they were thieves because I was still asleep. There were three people standing at my door, they ordered me to go to the sector offices, and I was handed over to security personnel and I was told that I was going to be vaccinated against my will." Cells and sectors are administrative entities between villages and districts.

The man recalled that he was forced to sit under the scorching sun until the evening when he got vaccinated. According to him, five police officers and six civilians surrounded him and ordered him into a room.

"They pounced on me and dragged me on the ground, manhandling me, shoving their knees in my back and everywhere, as the handcuffs were cutting deep wounds around my wrists," he said. "They even tried to suffocate me." Then, according to his statement, medics came and injected a vaccine.

'We completely refused'

Some people cited warnings from religious leaders as their reason for not getting vaccinated. Members of a Pentecostal Church, who rejected getting vaccinated, claimed that they were held for a week by the military, police and local leaders trying to sensitize them to take the jabs. According to their account, this happened in transit centers that mainly handle street children and criminals in the Western Province's Ngororero district.

"We completely refused to take the jabs and instead asked the soldiers and police to shoot us or drown us to death. We put up a demonstration, but they said they won’t shoot us," a man told DW. He said the group was forced to take the shots. "When they realized we were not ready to change our mind, they brought in many police officers, and we were handcuffed," he said. "The police officers held us to the ground, and we were vaccinated."

A man from the Rwamagana district, in the Eastern Province, told DW that he fled with his wife from his home when authorities wanted to force them to be vaccinated. "I was suffering from malaria and taking […] medication. I begged them not to vaccinate me. When they insisted, we fled our home."

When DW spoke to him, he had still not returned home. According to him, many people in his neighborhood were forced to get vaccinated: "It's not only me. If you want, I can point to different places where they are."

DW cannot independently verify these testimonies.

CLADHO, an umbrella body for human rights organizations in Rwanda, told DW in a statement that the groups had seen media reports about forced vaccinations. "CLADHO is in the process of investigating to get a clear picture of the situation," said executive secretary Emmanuel Safari. It considers such acts illegal.

DW reached out to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Both told DW that they currently don't have any information on forced COVID vaccinations in Rwanda.

Authorities contradict reports

DW has also contacted Rwanda's Health Ministry and the prime minister's office, asking for a comment about the testimonies. Two deadlines passed without a statement by the authorities.

Christopher Nkusi, the mayor of the Ngororero district, dismissed the reports within his region as false. "Those with resistance are sensitized and vaccinated afterwards because even right now we have many who are not yet vaccinated. We are still in the process of sensitizing them. I am not aware of any case of forced vaccination in my district."

Rumors shared online

Rumors about forced vaccination — with physical violence or psychological pressure — have been circulating for weeks.

In December, video footage was widely shared on social networks and messaging apps among Rwandan people. The 30-second clip shows an elderly man in dirty and worn-out clothes. He says in Kinyarwanda that he doesn't want any injection or vaccination, and closes the door to his house. A person who is not visible in the video is heard saying that the injection would be for his protection, and continues: "But, if you don't accept it, the report about your behavior won't be good."

Later, a widely shared photo showed the same man sitting on the ground while another man in a military uniform put his hands on the elderly man's shoulders and a third person injected a substance into his arm. [MORE]

Doc Fired After Testimony: 'All the Currently Available COVID Shots in the US are Experimental. None is Licensed. Comirnaty has Full License but Isn't Available. Experimental Drugs Can't be Mandated'

• January 11, 2022, the Health and Human Services Committee of the Maine legislature held a public hearing on LD867 “An Act to Prohibit Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations for 5 Years to Allow for Safety Testing and Investigations Into Reproductive Harm”

• Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist with a special interest in vaccine-induced illnesses and expertise in anthrax and bioterrorism, testified in favor of the bill

• All currently available COVID shots in the U.S. are experimental. None is licensed. Comirnaty, which has received full license, is not available in the U.S., and won’t be made available as long as doses of the Emergency Use Authorized Pfizer shot, BNT162b2, remain

• Since the COVID shots are experimental, U.S. law requires potential recipients to have the right to refuse. Experimental drugs also cannot be mandated, and potential recipients must give written informed consent. Informed consent cannot be given when reports of side effects are censored and not disclosed

• Some foundational safety studies are just now starting and won’t be completed until 2027

From [MERCOLA] January 11, 2022, the Health and Human Services Committee of the Maine legislature held a public hearing on LD8671 “An Act to Prohibit Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations for 5 Years to Allow for Safety Testing and Investigations Into Reproductive Harm.”

The American Cancer Society is vehemently opposed to this rational bill.2 In some twisted, incomprehensible logic, the ACS claims that banning mandatory COVID jabs would “place the health of cancer patients at greater risk.” How, one might ask, could that happen, considering the jabbed are just as likely to contract and spread the virus?

Getting the shot in no way, shape or form protects anyone around you. So, what could it be? One can only wonder if the ACS’ opposition has anything to do with their “long-standing partnership”3 with vaccine maker Pfizer, which in 2020 alone helped the ACS hand out $3.7 million in grants4 — but which also happens to produce one of the COVID mRNA injections?

If vaccine mandates are upheld, ACS’ partner, Pfizer, has lots to gain. But if mandates are banned, they could have plenty to lose. Among those who testified in favor of the bill was Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist with a special interest in vaccine-induced illnesses and expertise in anthrax and bioterrorism.

In her testimony, Nass presented several key reasons for why we need to prevent COVID jab mandates until there’s adequate safety data. Nass’ testimony is posted on her blog, anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com.5 Here, I’ll provide a summary review of her key points.

The COVID Shots Are Experimental

Yes, the COVID shots are still experimental. No, there are no Food and Drug Administration-approved COVID shots AVAILABLE or IN USE in the United States, and experimental drugs cannot claim to be safe and effective. FDA Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Subchapter D Part 312:[3]6 defines a medical experiment as “any use of a drug except for the use of a marketed drug in the course of medical practice,” and vaccines are a subset of drugs, per the FDA.

“While FDA licensed Comirnaty ... only Emergency Use Authorized (experimental) vaccines are being used,” Nass notes.

What’s more, that term, “safe and effective,” is an FDA term that can only be applied to licensed drugs and vaccines. Since none of the COVID shots given is actually licensed, they are, by definition, experimental or investigational. Besides, trials have not yet concluded for any of the vaccine makers. They’re still ongoing.

“No matter what claims have been made regarding these vaccines, they are not ‘safe and effective,’” Nass says. “Medicines and vaccines are EITHER licensed products or experimental products. There is no gray area between them in U.S. law.

Whether or not research is explicitly conducted, the use of experimental products (including those issued under an Emergency Use Authorization) falls under the Nuremberg Code and under U.S. law regulating experimental drugs. As former FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn himself noted, ‘EUA products are still considered investigational.’”

Informed Consent and Option to Refuse Are Required by Law

So, the EUA COVID shots are, by definition, experimental, and when a person is offered an experimental product, U.S. law requires that they provide written informed consent.

Now, the informed consent requirement was loosened under the PREP Act that created the EUAs, but the law still requires that participants be informed “of the significant known and potential benefits and risks,” and “the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown.” Moreover, they must have the option to accept or refuse the treatment.

To this day, participants in this global experiment have NOT been told of the potential risks. They receive no adequate disclosure form before they’re given the shot, and Big Tech in collusion with government has censored any and all discussion and disclosure of adverse effects.

Even those who are reporting their personal experiences are censored and/or deplatformed. For a taste of what those injured by the COVID jabs have had to endure, see Del Bigtree’s interview with three such victims.7

How Liability Is Being Skirted

Nass then goes on to explain why — seeing how the FDA has approved the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID shot called Comirnaty — this product is not actually being used in the U.S.

In short, it comes down to liability. The two products are not interchangeable (as confirmed in federal court8) because they are not identical in terms of liability under U.S. law. (The liability issue differs from country to country, which is likely why Comirnaty is available in Europe but not the U.S. Everything discussed here applies only to the U.S.)

Indeed, a federal district court judge in November 2021 rejected the U.S. Department of Defense’s claim that Pfizer’s EUA shot, BNT162b2, is interchangeable with the licensed Comirnaty.9 Why would Pfizer give up blanket immunity by withdrawing the remaining EUA lots and replacing them with a product they can be sued for by people who are injured?

The Pfizer-BioNTech EUA product, BNT162b2,10 has very limited financial liability for injuries and deaths, thanks to it being under EUA. This liability shield extends to the manufacturer, distributors, administrators, program planners and just about everyone else involved in the making, distribution and administering of this product.

Comirnaty, on the other hand, as a fully licensed product, does not enjoy this broad liability shield. It is subject to ordinary liability claims. Strangely enough, the FDA extended the EUA for BNT162b2 on the very same day it granted full license to Comirnaty, and Pfizer has no plan to make Comirnaty available in the United States as long as BNT162b2 doses are still available.11

Why didn’t the FDA pull the EUA for BNT162b2 once it licensed Comirnaty? They’re supposed to be identical products, so why the two wildly diverging and contradictory lines of approval?

“FDA appears to have been acceding to the White House demand that the vaccine be licensed, in order for it to be mandated for large sectors of the U.S. population. Under an EUA, which specifies that potential recipients have the right to refuse, mandates cannot be imposed.” ~ Dr. Meryl Nass

By law, an EUA can only be granted when there are no other drugs available, so once a COVID shot was licensed, all EUA “vaccines” should actually have been pulled. As stated by the Children’s Health Defense in its lawsuit against the FDA and acting commissioner Janet Woodcock:12

“The black letter law is clear. There can be no biologic license approved to a medical product for diagnosing, preventing or treating COVID-19 if there is also still an Emergency Use Authorization for the same medical product serving the same purpose.”

I recently discussed this issue with Alix Mayer from Children’s Health Defense. If you are interested in more details please review the video below.

Anonymous Doctor Explains Exactly How COVID Injections 1, 2 and 3 Can Destroy Your Body and Created for Depopulation

Monetary Expert Catherine Austin Fitts: We are Headed for a Digital Concentration Camp